What rule changes would you make to sport?

Originally posted by thaughbaer
The "powers" need to learn from it and evolve. Anything that stagnates will die if everything else around it is evolving. T20 is colourful and exciting.. there's no doubt about that... and has bought some "interesting" innovations to the game like the "free hit". If you're trying to attract new players into the game that's exactly what you need.

Well the "powers" are free to do what they want, of course. They are well aware that they won't bring the whole of cricket fandom along with them. Attendance at county T20 games in the U.K. has been patchy after the initial novelty. Test cricket has been very exciting and often dramatic for the last 5-8 years; the main place where crowd attendance has been shrinking has been in India, where the IPL is staged. I understand the appeal of T20. I really do. But as a cricket watcher for about 40 years or more, it does not appeal to me. I haven't read a single word about it or clicked on a single YouTube link this season so far. I couldn't tell you who plays for whom. But i will try to contrive to hear every single ball of this summer's Ashes series on TMS online!

Originally posted by FMF
Things like shot selection, building an innings, the value placed on your wicket when batting, the more absorbing and extended cat and mouse between a skillful bowler and a skillful batsman, and how to respond to the strategic situations that long passages of play can create. In the first class context, the kind of bowling used in T20 is too negative and lacking ills needed for the first class game have been widely discussed. I assumed you would be aware.

Do you really think that M S Dhoni doesn't choose his shots, he doesn't know how to pace a run chase? That Dale Steyns bowling is less strategic than when he plays other forms of the game, that Sunile Narines bowling is less rhythmic, that Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting dont know how to place a field or put pressure on batsmen or bowlers? That as soon as they play in the IPL it has an adverse effect on other forms of the game. The only thing that I have been made aware of is your intellectual snobbery and you have not cited a single instance as to why it should have a negative form on other forms of the game, pity that, with your extensive knowledge I thought it would have been easy for an opinionated pompous bloat like yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you really think that M S Dhoni doesn't choose his shots, he doesn't know how to pace a run chase? That Dale Steyns bowling is less strategic than when he plays other forms of the game, that Sunile Narines bowling is less rhythmic? The only thing that I have been made aware of is your intellectual snobbery and you have not cited a single instanc ...[text shortened]... that, with your extensive knowledge I thought it would have been easy for an expert like you.

It's not "intellectual" snobbery, robbie. I see T20 as an inferior sporting contest compared to first class cricket. We're not talking about the likes of M S Dhoni and Dale Steyn. We're talking about younger, lesser players making their way in the grassroots game who will have severely limited ideas and experience of how to put together first class innings, and bowlers who have no idea how to bowl longer spells in the context of 3, 4 and 5 day games. If you are unaware of the misgivings that a lot of longstanding cricket fans and commentators and other people in the game have about how the high money value T20 type skills paraded by a relatively tiny cricket elite are impacting the longer forms of the game, you can look into it - if you're interested. There is nothing "intellectual" about people liking different formats. And the possible demise of first class cricket is something that troubles my passion for the game, not my "intellect".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have not cited a single instance as to why it should have a negative form on other forms of the game

But I did, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting dont know how to place a field or put pressure on batsmen or bowlers? That as soon as they play in the IPL it has an adverse effect on other forms of the game.

Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting are good players. The adverse effect is on the younger, less talented players making their way in professional cricket, learning the ropes of slogging through 20 overs innings, getting a 20 off 8 balls before holing out - and bowlers sending a series of deliveries down that would not get a test player out unless he is playing complete slog shots in a essentially meaningless innings - the impact of all this on first class teams playing first class cricket. Look at the decline in Australian cricket in the last few years. They play huge amounts of domestic T20 - The Big Bash - and it is producing a new generation that simply might never be able to play test cricket as well as the Australian teams in the era before T20.

Originally posted by FMF
It's not "intellectual" snobbery, robbie. I see T20 as an inferior sporting contest compared to first class cricket. We're not talking about the likes of M S Dhoni and Dale Steyn. We're talking about younger, lesser players making their way in the grassroots game who will have severely limited ideas and experience of how to put together first class innings, and class cricket is something that troubles my passion for the game, not my "intellect".

If its not snobbery pure and simple then its a failure to recognise the intrinsic differences between 20/20 and other forms of the game. 20/20 has its own demands. Blitz chess is not played in the same manner as chess under classical chess time controls, it hardly makes it an inferior form, does it, simply different. I could not care less about your misgivings, I am interested in evidence, your personal feelings are irrelevant. If it conflicts with the first class cricket program then that is something for respective bodies to look at. The IPL does not miss the absence of English players, far from it. If you dont like the IPL, then dont watch it but we cannot help it. Let us celebrate and dance in Chennai, Kolkata, Pune and Banglore, we'd rather watch Chris Gayle and AB de Villiers rockin it in Hyderabad in last over dramas than some long drawn out affair that ends in a draw after five days. Chennai super Kings for the tournament!

Lesser players, who are you talking about FMF? In the IPL you are allowed four oversees players per side, who tend to be very good, the rest need to be Indian. How is that going to effect anyone else except the Indian test side, according to your theory?

You are citing the demise of the Australian test side because they play in the IPL?

Originally posted by FMF
But I did, robbie.

sure you did.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If its not snobbery pure and simple then its a failure to recognise the intrinsic differences between 20/20 and other forms of the game. 20/20 has its own demands.

Of course I recognize the "intrinsic differences" between T20 and first class cricket. I don't like T20, though. And I think the approach to batting and bowling that it requires will create more and more inferior bowlers and inferior batsmen in the first class context, which is the form of cricket that I prefer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are citing the demise of the Australian test side because they play in the IPL?

No. Because Australians at club level, grade level, state level are playing more and more T20 - and making their names in that format - and are steadily becoming less adept at the first class format of the game. It is much debated in the cricket world.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you dont like the IPL, then dont watch it but we cannot help it.

But I have already said that I do not like it and that I do not watch it. I am not asking you not to like it and not to watch it, robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course I recognize the "intrinsic differences" between T20 and first class cricket. I don't like T20, though. And I think the approach to batting and bowling that it requires will create more and more inferior bowlers and inferior batsmen in the first class context, which is the form of cricket that I prefer.

evidence please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we'd rather watch Chris Gayle and AB de Villiers rockin it in Hyderabad in last over dramas than some long drawn out affair that ends in a draw after five days.

It sounds as though ~ unlike me ~ you prefer T20 to test cricket. I'm getting that impression. May I ask: has T20 been a way in to cricket for you? Or did you like cricket before the T20 phenomenon started?

Originally posted by FMF
No. Because Australians at club level, grade level, state level are playing more and more T20 - and making their names in that format - and are steadily becoming less adept at the first class format of the game. It is much debated in the cricket world.

I am sure it is and it may have some validity but without evidence, how shall we know?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
evidence please.

If you are genuinely interested in this issue then I suggest you browse the many articles on the pros and cons of T20 cricket and its influence on how players are playing in other formats here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure it is and it may have some validity but without evidence, how shall we know?

I don't need you to "know", robbie. I am simply stating my opinion as a lifelong cricket fan. I do not need you to agree with me. As I have said, if T20 has got you interested in cricket and your interested in cricket in a wider sense, then there is plenty of information and opinions ~ many of them different from mine, and by people much better informed than me ~ out there to be read. There is extensive coverage of the IPL here http://www.espncricinfo.com/ as far as I am aware. If it's anything near as good as its coverage of first class cricket, then it will undoubtedly be excellent/